PORTFOLIO POINT: The rumblings have not been denied. A super raid seems inevitable in a desperate bid to balance a beaten up budget.
That the Federal Government is going to raid superannuation to make a surplus of the current year’s budget is now considered a done deal.
How do we know this? Because none of the ideas floated in last 10 days or so have been denied. Further, Bill Shorten is quoted as saying that “nothing is off the table” in regards to potential super changes to help the government get the budget into the black for FY2013.
It seems just a matter of what they’re going to steal from our super kitty. And they can steal pretty much anything they want. They have the power.
As I wrote last week (26/9/12), SMSFs could become a direct target. There are different rules for SMSFs.
Sure, it risks severely irritating hundreds of thousands of people. But think about the political numbers. SMSF trustees, in the main, are considerably wealthier than the average punter … making them largely unlikely to be Labor votes. Making them angry isn’t going to cost the government too many votes.
However, the real issue for the government in getting the budget back to surplus is time.
Measures that come into effect from 1 July, 2013, aren’t much good to them. They need to be capable of being implemented as of whatever day they announce it, or potentially backdated to 1 July, 2012.
To get a budget back into surplus when the financial year is already one-quarter over (and counting) is going to require measures that can be switched on immediately with revenue payable just as fast. Unlike so many other grand plans for super of the current government that have been delayed because of their complexity, such as the deferral of the rules surrounding in-specie transfers (see 27/6/12), these will need be taxed immediately, or even the metaphorical yesterday.
So, what could the government do? Honestly, it could literally do anything. That so many ideas have been floated is worrying.
Superannuation is “lightly taxed”. Taxing it a little more is still going to make it “lightly taxed”.
But if the theme of taxing the rich (and reducing government incentives to them), which have been a constant of this government, is to be continued, then here are a few things to think about.
Lowering the penalty contributions tax threshold
In the most recent budget, the government announced that if you earn more than $300,000 a year, you will now be taxed at 30% for your super contributions, instead of 15%.
Those earning $300,000-plus a year literally amounts to a few per cent of the population. There were no tears shed – possibly not even by those earning more than that.
But what if they reduced the $300,000 salary bracket? The cries would be louder if they dropped it to, say, $180,000 a year. But those earning in excess of $180,000 a year have a marginal tax rate of 46.5% anyway, so a 30% tax rate for super contributions would still represent a 16.5% saving.
It would massively increase the number of people that it hit and could quickly raise revenue. And it could probably be backdated to 1 July, 2012, without parliamentary support from the Greens and independents.
In fact, it is believed caucus wanted the super penalty tax to cut in at $150,000 (like several other government benefits that have been removed for individuals or families that earn that amount of money) when initially discussed prior to this year’s budget. Super Minister Bill Shorten successfully argued for it to be $300,000.
With negative reaction amounting to three parts of not very much, this would be an easy one to implement.
Neuter joint pension/contribution strategies
There is a perception in the mass media that transition to retirement/salary sacrifice strategies are only available to SMSFs. Utter bollocks.
They can be implemented by any super fund member who is still working that gets appropriate advice. If SMSFs are using it more, it’s because they take a greater interest in their super.
But there’s a vocal group that believe it’s a rort, practiced only by the rich. Some of the people who can benefit most from these strategies are, by no stretch, wealthy. The ones that are benefiting from it are either doing a lot of research themselves, or paying for good advice from their financial advisers and/or accountants.
Cut the government co-contribution
It’s been pretty much neutered and replaced anyway, so why not just ditch it and save the money?
The government co-contribution used to be $1500 under the previous Howard Government, if you put in $1000 and your income was below a certain level (around $30,000).
That got reduced by the Rudd and Gillard governments to $1000, then $500. On top of this, indexation of the limit was frozen and the top level at which it cut out massively reduced. And then the LISC rebate (see next) of contributions tax for those earning up to $37,000 a year was introduced. Many don’t understand why the government co-contribution was left in place when LISC was introduced. And it’s a reasonable cost to the government.
The low income superannuation contribution of up to $500 a year could also be delayed until next financial year, like the delay to the 50-50-500 rule, which has been delayed until 1 July 2014.
This is unlikely, given the government’s moves have been to support lower income workers with super and penalise higher income earners.
Increase the income tax rate for superannuation
Superannuation income is taxed at 15%, which is lower than the 19% marginal tax rate for those earning more than $18,200 a year. Concessional contributions are considered income to a super fund.
By raising the income tax rate for super from 15% to 16% or 17% would bear immediate fruit for a government needing cash.
Very unpopular, but given the increase in that lowest of marginal tax rates, an option.
Cut the concessional contributions limit
With the 50-50-500 rule delayed for two years, why wouldn’t the government consider cutting the concessional contributions limit from $25,000 to $20,000?
They’ve already cut it from $100,000 to $50,000 to $25,000. What’s another cut?
This would be hugely unpopular. But, arguably, would again only hit the wealthy. Or those who get good advice about super contributions.
Reviewing the tax breaks for geared SMSF property
I’ve written extensively on geared property for SMSFs in super, including how you can turn your SMSF into a tax-free fund now, by using negative gearing to soak up contributions and income taxes inside your SMSF.
Directly-held and geared investment property is ONLY available to SMSFs and not APRA-regulated funds. And it’s an increasingly popular strategy. If the government wants to attack SMSFs directly, then limiting the benefits of negative gearing for property would be a good target. I don’t believe it would be simple – and much grandfathering would be necessary – but could be done.
Start taxing pensions for the over-60s
This could happen, but would be massively unpopular. Plenty have argued that this centrepiece of former Treasurer Peter Costello’s 2007 super changes was unsustainable.
But taxing super pensions again? Seriously?
What can you do?
To be honest, short getting “Deep Throat” to confirm exactly what the government is planning, there’s not much I can suggest you do that is likely to help. That is, until we know exactly what the government is planning.
The government is DESPERATE to get this year’s budget back into surplus. Changing the rules mid-year, or making changes retrospective, is unfair to those who have been acting in good faith. But this is a government behind in the polls, who doesn’t believe that they can break their promise on providing a budget surplus this year. “Nothing is off the table,” Shorten says.
Personally, I keep on thinking back to my comments late last year (7/12/11). This government is slowly unwinding the benefits of superannuation and will eventually turn it into a second safety net, after the age pension.
That is, if you can afford to fund your retirement from non-super means, then this government believes “why should we give you tax breaks?”
That’s politics. And if a major attack on super is about to be launched – whether or not it’s directly aimed at SMSFs – it’s desperate short-term politics.
The information contained in this column should be treated as general advice only. It has not taken anyone’s specific circumstances into account. If you are considering a strategy such as those mentioned here, you are strongly advised to consult your adviser/s, as some of the strategies used in these columns are extremely complex and require high-level technical compliance.